Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted: My Lords, I shall speak to the whole of this group of amendments. I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. From the debate we have had it is quite clear that there is a little bit of an earthquake going on throughout the whole of the Bill. In a sense, its epicentre, as has been rightly explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, comes to a climax with the criminal sanctions. Deleting the criminal sanctions parts would not provide a solution because they build on all the other wrongs, if I may call them that, that exist in the other clauses—throughout the sanctions part debated today and the powers contained in Schedule 2, which we will debate. We may eliminate those criminal sanctions, but we would still have an awful lot of other powers that will still do an awful lot of wrong. The fact that the criminal sanctions are laid on top of them is what makes it so egregious.
I move on to the transposition of the fourth money laundering directive and the issue of precedents. It has been said that there are precedents for creating criminal offences by statutory instrument and that in the past as well as now constitutional committees and delegated powers committees of this House have objected. In the earlier debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, explained that those criminal offences might be buried among many other regulations. I have a good example here; it is a pretty thick one. It is the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017—that is, the fourth money laundering directive. I think that there are 116 pages of dense type there, together with the schedules, and 109 other articles—sorry, we are not in Europe any more, or we will not be, or we may not be, or maybe we are. There are 109 other regulations contained within that. One of those is new—we have just dealt with it again recently—but in terms of the precedent, they derive from things that happened in the Proceeds of Crime Act. They reflect what has happened to the primary offence of money laundering, on to the secondary or derived offences where banks or other financial institutions have failed to have the right procedures in place. So there are kinds of precedents, even though I do not agree with the way that it has been done.
If we turn to what we have both in Clause 16 and Schedule 2, we see that there are no limitations at all. There are very open powers—they are even more open in Schedule 2 than in the sanctions part of the Bill. There may have been a failed attempt to create a framework for those criminal offences by referencing alongside them that the Minister will look to the matters of defences and evidence, but that has created other problems. As was again elaborated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, how can we tell that those will not be the right kinds of provisions? What do we know about the future?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said earlier that, ultimately, the only thing that matters is what is in the Act; it does not matter what the Minister’s intentions are, even if he says what they are—it is the words of the Act. We do use legislation for purposes that were not intended. In 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, the UK used anti-terrorism legislation to freeze £4 billion of assets of Landsbanki. It caused us a great loss of reputation in some circles, which is  not to say I endorse what Landsbanki was up to. When the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was going through Parliament, I do not think anybody said, “We’re going to use this to freeze the assets of banks because they were a bit too laissez-faire in their financial regulation”. Something that was done for one purpose was used seven years later for another. Who is to say that there are not many other examples—I am sure if I dig I can find them—or that we may not get examples like that in the future? One cannot have new offences that are unpredictable as to how the rule of law, the defence and due process will operate. One has to have those safeguards, and this Bill does not do any of that.
I refer to what the Minister said in the debate on Clause 2 on whether one should wind up a company or disqualify directors. This was in the context of a company that would have been breaching sanctions and doing things such as arms trading. The Minister said that those amendments would not do because all the Bill aims to do is to replicate sanctions and the amendments went over and above that—the sanctions provisions that are already in existence, he meant—and we do not want to go further than other countries on sanctions and do what the US and the EU are not doing. I can tell noble Lords that they do not do unlimited, undefined, potentially abolish-the-defence type of criminal sanctions. Actually, they do not have the powers to do that, but I doubt that they would do it anyway.
Another thing that the Minister said was that the sanctions need to be reversible. I fear that there is nothing very reversible about 10 years in prison. There is something seriously wrong here: it needs a lot more structure around it if they are even going to make the case that we can have sanctions, for instance, if they are going to follow, or punishment for sanctions, if they are new ones. The circumstances that give rise to requiring sanctions might be unpredictable, but the general nature of the sanctions that are imposed are not. You stop people trading or stop people having access to financial services: you can certainly put a framework around those. No effort whatever has been made, yet if you turn to something such as the fourth money laundering directive—and, indeed, the very regulations that have just been made to transpose it—all those safeguards are already there. There is absolutely no reason why they should be replicated in the Bill.